Eric Alterman:
I've picked a short (representative) Honor Roll of people in a variety of
fields whose prescience and patriotism led them to risk their positions
and/or prestige in public life to warn their nation of impending catastrophe:
Soldier. On October 10, 2002, Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.), former chief
of US Central Command, gave a speech in Washington in which he repeated
numerous points he'd made during the run-up to war (and which cost him his
appointment as George W. Bush's special envoy to the Middle East). "If we
think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq," Zinni
warned, "then we don't understand history, the nature of the country, the
divisions or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God
help us if we think this transition will occur easily." Honorable mention
goes to: Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was cashiered after
accurately informing Congress that the occupation of Iraq would require
"something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers"; and Gen.
Wesley Clark (Ret.), who predicted that the result of a unilateral US
invasion would be "to supercharge recruiting for Al Qaeda."
full: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/liberalmedia
===
November 15, 2006
Military Analysis
Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over
Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops
back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and
the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it
will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for
securing and rebuilding Iraq.
This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator
Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers,
experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most
vehement critics of the Bush administrations Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and
one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of
American forces over the next several months would be more likely to
accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up
to this, General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal
al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. Well, you cant put pressure on a
wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now,
that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so
sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense
to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months
to regain momentum as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that
would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more
effective Iraqi security forces.
full: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html
===
Democrats Must Offer A New Blueprint for Iraq
By Scott Ritter, AlterNet
Posted on November 15, 2006, Printed on November 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/44295/
With the dramatic victory of the Democratic Party in the recent mid-term
elections, winning as it did a majority in the House of Representatives and
the United States Senate, there appear to be heightened expectations in
many corners of the United States that this new Congress will be able to
somehow act on the expectations of the American people and help President
Bush chart a new policy course in Iraq. The resignation of Donald Rumsfeld,
together with the appointment of the former CIA Director Bob Gates,
represents a transition from ideology to pragmatism in a Defense Department
torn apart by the ongoing debacle in Iraq. Mr. Gates not only represents a
break from the Rumsfeldian past, but also brings with him his recent
participation in the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan committee tasked with
exploring new policy directions for the United States in Iraq.
The political astuteness of the decision by President Bush to replace
Rumsfeld with Gates has escaped notice by many Democrats, who seem inclined
simply to gloat over the demise of their archenemy. However, removing
Rumsfeld not only eliminated an all-too convenient lightening rod for
democratic angst over Bush's Iraq policies, but also, by putting Gates up
in his stead, bought the Bush administration much needed political
breathing room, as Gate's cannot be held accountable for policy failures he
had nothing to do with either formulating or implementing. Indeed, given
the fact that the Democrats have as of yet failed to articulate anything
that remotely resembles a sound policy option regarding Iraq, instead
falling back on the age-old tradition of criticizing without offering a
solution of their own, a Gates controlled Defense Department will be almost
untouchable from an oversight perspective, especially if Gates chooses to
act on any of the policy options the Baker-led Iraq Study Group may
recommend to the President.
(clip)
--
www.marxmail.org
